Reply #111: Well

[atre]

Mr. S., I know there is little that would console you as to those events, but you may be pleased to know that the case in which you were involved was is an unreported decision (as of this momen); as it stands now, it is not precedent for future decisions (although one recent case has distinguished it).

Based on my objective legal opinion, you were wronged. The "vicarious consent" doctrine as between parents and children already rests on shaky ground, and to stretch the meaning of "intimidate" to include mere persuasion is the ultimate in results-oriented legal sophistry. I don't know whether the opinion was predicated on xenophobia against Californians, but I do know that courts and even appellate courts are wrong all the time. It's a terribly inexact business, and the problem is only compounded by the intellectual limitations of the judges.